Скачать 5.9 Mb.
Arguments. the immanence, the personality, the
Fatherhood of God, and the Trinity.
Those writers who have not acknowledged the force
of Kant's well known criticism of the theistic argu
ments maintain the full validity of these proofs (cf.
R. Flint, Theism, new ed., New York, 1890; J. L.
Diman, The Theistic Argument, Boston, 1882).
Others, as John Caird (ut sup.), conceive of the cos
mological and teleological arguments as stages
through which the human spirit rises to the knowl
edge of God which attains fulfilment in the onto
logical, the alone sufficient proof; yet Caird accords
a real validity to the teleological argument inter
preted from the point of view of evolution. Still
others would restate the first and second arguments
so that the cosmological argument would run as
follows: The world of experience is manifold and
yet unified in a law of universal and concomitant
variation among phenomena caused by some one
being in them which is their true self and of which
they are in some sense phases. As self sufficient,
this reality is absolute; as not subject to restric
tions from without, it is infinite; as explanation of
the world, it is the world7ground. The teleological
argument would first inquire if there is in the world
of experience activity toward ends, and secondly,
when found, refer this to intelligence. Other forms
of the theistic argument are drawn from the fact
of finite intelligence, from epistemology (in reply
to agnosticism), from metaphysical considerations
in which purposeful thought is shown to be the
essential nature of reality, and from the moral
order which involves freedom and obligation to a
personal source and ideal (cf. E. Caird, Critical
Philosophy of Kant, 2 vols., Glasgow, 1889; T. H.
Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, 4th ed., London, 1899).
The idea of divine immanence is variously pre
sented. Its true meaning is that God is the inner
and essential reality of all phenomena,
5. Im but this is susceptible of two very
manence. different interpretations. On the one
hand, a pantheistic or metaphysical
immanence, in which the One is identified with the
many. This, however, destroys the relative inde
pendence of the human consciousness, eliminates
the ethical value of conduct, and breaks down the
very idea of God (cf. for criticism of metaphysical
immanence, J. Caird, ut sup.; J. Royce, The World
and the Individual, vol. ii.). Other notions of im
manence are: First, God is present by his creative
omniscience, so that the creation is in his image,
and with a degree of independence, proceeds of
itself and realizes the divine ideals (G. H. Howison,
in Royce's Conception of God, New York, 1897).
Secondly, the immanence of God is made picturesque
by the analogy of the outside physical phenomena
of the brain and the inner psychical phenomena
of consciousness in which the true self appears.
In like manner the veil of nature hides a person,
complete, infinite, self existent (J. LeConte, also in
Royce, ut sup.). Thirdly, God is personally present
as energy in all things and particularly in all per
Godliness THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 10
sons a doctrine which is not new in the Church, as witness the " spermatic Word " of Greek theology, and the Spirit of God in his cosmic and redemptive agency. The influence of the modern emphasis upon the divine immanence is evident in several directions. (1) Through the immanent teleology disclosed in the evolutionary process the teleological argument is reinstated in an unimpeachable form. (2) The distinction between the natural and the supernatural is not obliterated, but the natural is fully conceived only in relation to its supernatural cause: the natural is the constant method of the divine purpose, and the supernatural discloses itself in and by means of the natural. Special providence and even miracles are referred to the same divine causality. An ordinary event is as divine as a miracle (B. P. Bowne, Theism, New York, 1902). (3) Since the nature of man is grounded in God, life in union with God is not something alien or grafted on to his nature, but is the realization of what is essential and indissoluble in God's purpose for him (D. W. Simon, Redemption of Man, Edinburgh, 1889; A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation and Ethical Monism, Philadelphia, 1899). (4) In the light of the immanence of God a restatement of doctrine has been necessitated concerning revelation, the Trinity, creation, providence, sin,. incamar tion, atonement, and the Christian life (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, passim, Philadelphia, 1907). The doctrine of immanence does not detract from the truth of transcendence involved in ethical monism, since transcendence signifies that the fulness of the divine life is not exhausted in any finite expression of it, but, distinct from the world, is itself free intelligence and power (J. R. Illingworth, The Divine Immanence, London, 1898; B. P. Bowne, Immanence of God, ib. 1905). Neither English nor American thought has added anything essential to Lotze's presentation of the divine personality (J. R. Illingworth, Personality, Human and Divine, London, 1894; H. Rashdall, Doctrine and Development, pp. 268 sqq., ib. 1898 ; Mikrokosmus, Leipsic, 1856 58; Eng. tranel., Mzcrocosmus, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1885).
The Fatherhood of God is the well nigh universal term to describe the relation of God to men. This position has been reached (1) by a
6. Father return to the point of view of Jesus'
hood teaching and his own personal attitude of God. toward God, (2) by an increasing ethical interpretation of the divine nature in this particular respect led by Universalists and Unitarians (qq.v.), and (3) by a juster appreciation of the worth of the individual life. Fatherhood has indeed been restricted to God's relation to the regenerate, on the ground that man's natural relation to God was legal and servile, and that sonship and adoption resulted from redemption and regenerar tion (R. S. Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, Edinburgh, 1865). This, however, ignores the fact that man's essential nature was constituted for the filial relation. Since man was made in the image of God, and Christ not only has revealed the true meaning of sonship, but is himself the way to its realization, Fatherhood exhausts all the natural and redemptive relation of God to men (W. N. Clarke, Can 1 Believe
in God the Father f New York, 1899; T. S. Lidgett, The Fatherhood of God, Edinburgh, 1902; J. Orr, Progress of Dogma, London, 1903). If, finally, all the divine attributes and activities are crowned in Fatherhood, even sovereignty, omnipotence, justice, election, and grace are interpreted by it (A. M. Fairbairn, Place of Christ'in Modern Theology, New York, 1893; cf. W. Sanday, DB, ii. 205 215).
For English and American conceptions of the Trinity as affecting the idea of God, see TRINITY.
C. A. BECgwITH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: For the Biblical conception of God consult the works given under BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, particularly those of Schultz and Beyschlag. On the development of the idea in general consult: K. R. Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctrine, ed. H. B. Smith, New York, 1861 62; R. Rainy, Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1874; A. V. G. Allen, Continuity of Christian Thougt, Boston, 1884; T. C. Crippen, Introduction to Hist. of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1884; E. Hatch, Influence of Greets Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, London, 1892; also the sections in the various works upon church history which deal with the history of doctrine, and the works upon the history of dogma, such as those of Harnack and Dorner.
For modern treatment consult: J. B. Bossuet, TraitE de la connaisaance de Dieu et de soi mhrne, Paris, 1722; S. Charnoek, Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God, often printed, e.g., 2 vols., New York, 1874 (a classic); R. S. Candlish, Fatherhood of God, London, 1870; A. Gratry, De la connaissance de Dieu, 2 vols., Paris, 1873, Eng. transl., Guide to the Knowledge of God, Boston, 1892; J. Sengler, Die Idee Gottes, 2 vols., Heidelberg, 1845 52 (vol. i. historical, vol. ii. dogmatic); H. Ulrici, Gott and die Natur, Leipsic, 1875; E. Mulford, Republic of God chaps. i. ii., Boston, 1881; s. Harris, SelfRevelation of God, New York, 1887; J. S. Candlish, Christian Doctrine of God, New York, 1891; P. H. Steenatra, The Being of God as; Unity and Trinity, New York, 1891; J. A. Beet, Through Christ to God, London, 1892; E. M. Caxo, LIM& de Dieu et sea nouveaux critiques, Paris, 1894; A. M. Fairbaim, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, London, 1896; G. d'Alviella, Origin and Growth of the Conception of God, ib. 1897; J. Royce, The Conception of God, New York, 1897; R. Rocholl, Der christliche Gottesbegriff, Gbttingen, 1900; J. A. Leighton, Typical Modern Conceptions of God, London, 1901; E. A. Reed, Idea of God in Relation to Theology, Chicago, 1902; B. P. Bowne, The Immanence of God Boston 1905 S. Chadwick, Humanity and God, New York, 1905; W. H. Gillespie, The Argument a priori for the Being and Attributes of the Lord God, Edinburgh, 1906; F. Ballard, Theomonism True; God and the Universe in Modern Light, London, 1906; W. R. Inge, Personal Idealism and Mysticism lecture i., New York, 1907; P. Lobstein, .9tudes sur la doctrine chretienne de Dieu, Paris, 1907. Consult also the systems of theology in the works of Bus], Clark, Dabney, Dorner, Gerhart, Hodge, Jacob, Miley, Shedd, Smith
Strong, etc.; H. W. Gevatken, The Knowledge of God, Edinburgh, 1906.
GODEAU, g6"do', ANTOINE: Bishop of Grasse, and then of Vence; b. at Dreux (45 m. w. of Paris), in the diocese of Chartres, 1605; d. at Vence (14 m. n.e. of Grasse) Apr. 21, 1672. He devoted himself first to poetry, but later entered the clergy and became bishop of Grasse in 1636 and afterward of Vence. At the conventions of the clergy in 1645 and 1655 he attacked the Jesuit system of ethics. He wrote Histoire de l1glise depuis le commencement du monde jusqu'h la fin du neuvieme siMe (5 vols., Paris, 1653 78), Version expliquee du Nouveau Testament (2 vols., 1668), Les Psaumes de David, traduits en vers fran gais (1649), biographies of Paul, Augustine, Carlo Borromeo, Fastes de l'6glise, a poem of 15,000 verses, and other works.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: P. Pelliseon Fontanier Hint. de t'acadbmie frangaiae, Paris, 1653 ; B. Racine, AbHg6 de Mist. ecclesiastique, vol. sii., Paris; Lichtenberger, ESR, v. 618619.
GODEHARD, SAINT. See GOTTHARD, SAINT.
GODET, go"dg', FREDERIC LOUIS: Swiss Reformed; b. at Neuchhtel Oct. 25, 1812; d. there Oct. 29, 1900. He was educated in his native city and at the universities of Bonn and Berlin. After his ordination in 1836, he was assistant pastor at Valangin, near Neuch£tel, for a year, and was then tutor to Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia (1838 44). He was a supply for churches in the Val de Ruy (1844 51), and pastor at Neuchftel (1851 66). In 1850 73 he was also professor of exegetical and critical theology in the theological school of the established church of the canton, but withdrew from that body in 1873 and became a professor in the theological academy of the Free Church of the canton of NeuchAtel. He held this position until 1887, when he retired from active life. He wrote Histoire de la REformation et du refuge daps le pays de Neuchdtel (Neuehhtel, 1859); Commentaire sur lWangile de saint Jean (2 vols., Paris, 1864 65; Eng. transl. by F. Crombie and M. D. Cusin, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1877); Conf6rences apolog&iques (Neucbhtel, 1870; Eng. transl. by W. H. Lyttleton under the title Lectures; in Defence of the Christian Faith, Edinburgh, 1881); Commentaire sur l'Evangile de saint Luc, (1871; Eng. trans]. by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1875); etudes bibliques (2 vols., Neuchatel, 1873 74; Eng. trans]. by W. H. Lyttleton under the title Old Testament Studies and New Testament Studies, 2 vols., London, 1875 76); Commentaire sur fgpftre aux Romains (2 vols., 1879 80; Eng. tranal. by A. Cusin, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1880=81); Commentaire sur la premiere 6petre aux Corinthians (2 vols., 1886; Eng. transl. by A. Cusin, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1886 87); and Introduction au Nouveau Testament (2 vols., Paris, 1893 98; Eng. transl. by W. Affieck, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1894 99).
GODLINESS: The most usual translation in the English New Testament of the Greek eusebeia. This word and its adjective (evseUs), like the equivalent theosebeia and theosebes, are found a few times in the Old Testament Apocrypha (Wisd. of Sol. x. 12; Baruch v. 4), and in the New Testament first in the historical books with reference to pre Christian piety (John ix. 31; Acts x. 2, 7) and then in the later epistles mainly of Christian piety (I Tim. ii. 2, 10, iii. 16, iv. 7, 8, vi. 3, 5, 6, 11; 11 Tim. iii. 5, 12; Tit. i. 1, ii. 12; 11 Pet. i. 6, 7, iii. 11). The reason for this infrequency of occurrence is evidently that the notion eusebeia, derived from the heathen religion and morals, denotes piety in its complete generality comprising all forms of religion, whereas in the Biblical writings the uniqueness of the Old Testament and Christian knowledge and worship of God is placed foremost in opposition to all other religious ideas. When once this uniqueness of Christian piety was firmly established, the general designation could be applied in the latest New Testament writings without running the risk of mis
understanding. The result was that this generic
term actually received the more special meaning of
Christian piety as the root of all Christian morality.
To show godliness is to lead a Christian moral life
(I Tim. ii. 10, vi. 11; II Pet. i. 7); in this sense it
is profitable unto all things (I Tim. iv. 8). See
PIETY F. SIEFFERT.
In the modern acceptation of the word, godliness is the religious bearing of man, his disposition and his actions, in relation to God; or religiousness. Its forms are as varied as the differences in religions, yet heathen (Acts xvii. 22 23), Jewish (Luke xxiii. 50; Acts x. 2), Mohammedan, and Christian godliness are revelations of the same fundamental disposition of man toward the deity. It manifests itself by the same means with all: viz., by prayer and sacrifice; the first denoting reverence and reliance, the other the expression partly of gratitude, partly of the sense of guilt. Godliness, even where not inspired by Christianity, must not be underrated. It often supplies the want of right knowledge by warmth of feeling, by zealous deed, or by superior work. As long as, for an individual or a nation, the period of ignorance lasts, its devotion is agreeable (Gk. dektos) to the deity. Only when it is retained in conscious opposition to the proclaimed divine truth and the change of mind (Gk. metanoia)' is refused does it lose its religious value.
Christian godliness is founded on the pure knowledge of God. But this knowledge, if merely theoretical, can exist combined with actual ungodliness (James ii. 19). Therefore, as a second point, there must be the feeling of entire dependence on God, the holy fear of him, which, wherever it is not in the spirit of bondage, but of adoption (Rom. viii. 15), marks a sensation of bliss, of delight in God. Godliness is perfect if man retains the pure knowledge of God and the filial awe of him, with conscious will, as his most precious good and relies entirely on God; if he becomes a man of God (I Tim. vi. 11), if his heart is firmly established in its innermost direction toward God (Heb. xiii. 9). This godliness is the soul of personal religion, the root of all true virtue, the vigor of true morality. Its immediate expression is the offering incumbent upon the true Christian; unrestrained self sacrifice to God (Rom. xii. 1), prayer and confession (Heb. xiii. 15), and brotherly love (Heb. xiii. 16). It must exercise a notable influence on all the doings of a Christian. The godly man walks before God (Gen. xvii.1), follows him with all his heart (I Kings xiv. 8), walks in his truth (Ps. lxxxvi. 11), in the spirit (Gal. v. 25), in Jesus Christ (Col. ii. 6), in the light (I John i. 7); he lives unto God (Gal. ii. 19), and unto Christ (Phil. i. 21).
Individually godliness expresses itself in many a way; it develops by degrees, in conformity with age, sex and temper. Mary and Martha show two types (Luke x. 38 42). The model of a child's devotion and godliness is Jesus in the temple when he was twelve years old; the godliness of old age is displayed in Simeon and Anna. Peter, John, Paul are godly men, yet very different from each other. Sound godliness exists where knowledge, feeling, and will are well balanced. But as the normal natural man is realized in one person only, so is the normal
|Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D||Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D|
|Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D||Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D|
|Samuel macauley jackson, D. D., LL. D||Politics Disad – Jackson-Vanik Jackson-Vanik 1nc shell|
|Samuel Saporta, Ph. D||George R. Jackson, M. D., Ph. D|
|George R. Jackson, M. D., Ph. D||Lisa Jackson, Administrator|